Archives

I just read over at Fuddle Duddle that one of the PQ candidates believes Quebec wont obtain sovereignty until all the old federalists die… and he is talking about the Francophone voters who are federalists, not the English minority.

Notice how the guy is calling these folks “French-Canadian”. I guess that’s his derogatory remark for those francophone Quebeckers who are federalists.. which means “Quebecois” are the “real Quebeckers” or not traitors to the cause.. or something. It reminds me of the “Yvette” comment that PQ Minister Lise Payette would make towards women supporters of the “Non” side during that referendum.

I’d be interested to hear if that’s a belief universally held in the PQ. Maybe someone should be asking Bosclair.

Mike from Rational Reasons rebuttal in the 159-124 message thread to a conservative poster’s assertion that “These measures were not abused so the clause should have been extended.” is worth repeating:

Why? Not only were they not abused, they were not used. The potential exists for abuse and the police seem to be doing just fine without them, so why have them around. Frankly, the burden of proof is on those who wanted these measures to be extended to make the case. They needed to show, quite forcefully, that these measures must continue. They did not. The best they came up with was “it will scuttle Air India” – which didn’t hold water considering:

– that the RCMP and government’s own reluctance to provide un-redacted evidence to Justice John Major is threatening to scuttle the enquiry.
– that the RCMP, who have been investigating this crime for 22 years, have had access to these provisions for 5 years and never used them.
– that the Conservatives themselves agreed in committee in October that the renewal would only apply to future, new investigations not past one (thus excluding Air India) and as late as yesterday morning, Harper offered to agree to THAT agreement, essentially scuttling the Air India investigation as he implied the Liberals would do.

All of this for measures that are a clear danger to our civil rights, that have never been used – the police have foiled plots since 9-11 using good old fashioned police work (Toronto 17 anyone?). Clamouring to keep these measures to “protect” us from terrorism, despite the fact that we are more likely to die in a car accident, by drowning or by taking prescription drugs that by terrorist acts, seem rather silly. Cowardly almost.

I’m glad they are gone – good riddance to bad, unneeded laws with a huge potential for abuse.

According to Jeff Sallot in the Globe and Mail today, Canada’s police and security services not only have never used the now-gone sunset clauses, they’ve managed just fine without them:

As it turns out, the powers were never invoked in the past five years. The RCMP report they have quietly disrupted several terrorism plots in that time without ever arresting anyone…If the police and security agencies are correct, they’ve successfully foiled more than a dozen plots without ever resorting to the extraordinary arrest and investigative powers.

Sallot also asserts that the political climate in Canada since 9/11 has changed, and in my view he’s inferring that Harper’s attempts to turn […]

The NY Times praises Canada for its Supreme Court Decision to restore rights:

The United States was not the only country to respond to the horror of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with policies that went much too far in curtailing basic rights and civil liberties in the name of public safety. Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses, but that heartening news comes from Canada and not the United States…. The Canadian justices rejected their government’s specious national security claim with a forceful 9-to-0 ruling that upheld every person’s right to fair treatment. “The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote…Lawmakers have only to look to the Canadian court for easy-to-follow directions back to the high ground on basic human rights and civil liberties.

Those same lawmakers can also look to Dion and Layton and Duceppe and their MP’s who combined against the Conservative government’s fear and smear tactics and were not intimidated from voting to make sure that human rights and civil liberties are not trampled. They, along with the Canadian Supreme Court, have begun to swing the pendulum back toward what a free democratic society should be… and still maintain security legislation that can protect us.

The progressive politicians did their job last night, for ALL Canadians – even those who would throw away our rights without a moment’s hesitation and engage in the same contemptible smearing and mudslinging the Conservatives have attempted to use in order to politicize this issue.

It is not Dion or the Liberal Party or the BQ/Duceppe/NDP/Layton that are beholden to extremist factions – the accusers need only look in the mirror to find them.

Yes.. its Day 22 of our epic 22 Days of Harper’s Anti-Environment/Anti-Kyoto Quotes, and its been a blast to do these. On this special day, I give you my readers a special gift.. a BONUS 2nd quote! (meaning I really had 23 days worth of material, but miscounted):

Your first quote: “Carbon dioxide does not cause or contribute to smog, and the Kyoto treaty would do nothing to reduce or prevent smog.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, June 10, 2004).

No kidding. Kyoto wasnt designed to go after smog, as we’ve already stated here.

The 2 Sunset Clauses are officially defeated. All but 2 Liberals voted against it (Tom Wappel – not a shocker, and Irwin Cotler, who abstained).

Bravo to Dion for sticking to his guns and saying that anti-terror legislation does not need to go overboard and trample our civil liberties and our civil rights while protecting us.. and that view isnt being “weak on terror”. The Supreme Court took the same view on Friday with the Security certificates.

So I’ve had a couple of people ask me what I thought of Cherniak’s post where he basically thought Iggy should let Dion do the questioning of the PM, and he should do only questioning of specific ministers.. which has caused a few Libloggers heads to explode.

A) If Iggy is supposed to stop questioning Harper.. then the rest of Dion’s front-bench are going to have to do the same.. because I’ve seen many of the front-benchers like Robillard and so on directly question the PM.

B) It doesnt make much sense to me if you’re emphasizing the Liberal “Team” as opposed to Harper’s persona of 1-man total control of […]

Well, the Conservatives have proved that they are determined to drag this down into the mud as much as they can over their petulance that the sunset clauses will in all likelihood be defeated tonight. The Liberals are now held captive by “extremists” apparently:

Liberals demanded an apology from Ottawa Tory MP Pierre Poilievre for telling a radio interviewer that Dion’s caucus includes MPs who want to legalize the anti-Israeli terrorist group, Hezbollah, and shut down the investigation into the 1985 Air India bombing. “We know there is an extremist element in the Liberal party generally that has been very vocal in opposing measures that are designed to combat terrorism,” Poilievre said, according to a transcript of the interview. “And it would seem that Mr. Dion has collapsed under the pressure from those groups.”

Monsieur Poilievre made these remarks outside the House of Commons, where his parliamentary immunity isn’t in effect, and the Liberals are threatening to sue him for slander if he does not issue an apology:

Just to recap for you: Harper and his band of Conservatives have for weeks been charging the Liberals and Dion with being soft on terror. Harper has gone so far as to openly claim the Liberals are against extending the sunset clauses in the terror bill due to wanting to protect Navdeep Bains father-in-law – a smear and slur he has refused to apologize for. The Tories have politicized a Government of Canada’s website, charging the Opposition with being soft on terror (in reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling on security certificates), and backed down only after everyone noticed it and knew it was a breach of protocol.